io_update_reservation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the two-phase preview/confirmToken fallback writes NOTHING on the first call, the second call must repeat the same arguments, elicitation-capable clients skip the token entirely, and confirmToken is never to be invented or reused. It also discloses the prompt-injection threat model (tool-result text asking for a write). This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true rather than contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and the partial-update rule are front-loaded, and the confirmation mechanics follow in a single dense but ordered sentence. The closing security warning is long and slightly convoluted, but each clause carries distinct instruction the agent needs, so there is little genuine waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, idempotent mutation with a full 7-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers every open question an agent would have: what gets written and when, how confirmation works per client, how the token must be handled, and the injection risk. Nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new semantics: the update is a partial/PATCH-style operation ("Only provide fields to change"), and it constrains confirmToken to the second call of the fallback path with the same arguments. It does not add format detail for startDate/endDate or attendeeCount beyond the schema's ISO 8601 note.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing iOffice reservation") and the partial-update rule ("Only provide fields to change"), which separates it from io_create_reservation and io_delete_reservation. It never names a sibling explicitly, nor does it contrast with reservation-adjacent operations like io_checkin_reservation or io_cancel-style siblings, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear operational context: supply only changed fields, and the call is gated by a confirmation flow that differs by client capability. It doesn't state when to prefer this over io_create_reservation (new reservation) or leave reservation alone entirely, so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the conditions for the confirmToken path are spelled out in detail.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.